Derek E. Silvahttps://dereksilva.ca
Working towards better.Tue, 08 Nov 2016 20:22:00 +0000enhourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7Community Energy Plan Stakeholder Engagement Meetinghttps://dereksilva.ca/2016/11/community-energy-plan-stakeholder-engagement-meeting/
https://dereksilva.ca/2016/11/community-energy-plan-stakeholder-engagement-meeting/#respondSat, 05 Nov 2016 02:53:45 +0000http://dereksilva.ca/?p=1011Christian Tham, Middlesex Centre’s Embedded Energy Manager, hosted a get together on October 25, 2016 to show off what the municipality has been doing to reduce its energy usage, the results of its efforts, a brief review of the results of a survey Christian put out to the community, and then a discussion on what residents of Middlesex Centre can be in their businesses and homes to help reduce energy usage.

Background

The Community Energy Plan will not be a bylaw, it will not be something to be enforced. It’s going to be a set of guidelines, a plan, for residents, businesses, and other organizations in the municipality to follow in order to help reduce their energy usage. A discussion primer was sent out to survey participants.

Amongst those in attendance were an executive on the Ilderton Fair Board, along with his wife (I didn’t catch their names), the Financial Controller of Coldstream Concrete, a Councillor for Newbury, Middlesex Centre staff like Al Marsman, Brian Lima, Christian Tham, Michelle Smibert, and finally folks from Middlesex Centre council like Mayor Edmondson, Councillor DeViet (now Deputy Mayor as of November 3), and Councillor Berze.

The Meeting

As mentioned, Christian sent out a survey ahead of time to find out what citizens were already doing to reduce their energy usage, other actions they feel could be taken to further reduce energy use, and so on. He said there was a “tremendous response,” much higher than other online feedback initiatives the municipality has conducted. One major highlight is that 91% of the people surveyed were very concerned, or extremely concerned, about energy costs.

I’ve got a few highlights from Christian’s presentation, which I’ve linked to here:

Commercial or Industrial sector can get up to 40% of cost to build on-site energy generation with natural gas covered

Middlesex Centre’s conversion to LED is saving $97,000 per year; the municipality received $85,000 in incentives from Hydro One to help pay for the conversion

It will only take 4.5 years to achieve pay back on the investment

Municipal office has been converted to LED too, seeing $8,795.12 per year savings, with pay back in just over a year

Middlesex Centre’s newest fire hall will be a Net Zero Energy/Carbon building

FCM Green Fund is paying for all of green/renewable/sustainable measures put in place; the fire wall will use 55,800 kWh and generate 70,600 kWh using solar

No energy storage on-site, it will use power from the grid when needed

Questions & Answers/Idea Discussion

A Q&A portion followed, which led to the discussion Christian wanted to have around what other steps we all can be taking to reduce energy usage (which Christian was going to use to help inform the Community Energy Plan). Unfortunately the Q&A turned into a session for people to complain about high hydro rates, water and wastewater lifecycle charges, the municipality taking advantage of the FIT program and placing solar panels on the roof of the Wellness Centre, and so on.

While I am someone who encourages having these types of discussions, they were well outside the purview of this meeting. And, unfortunately, some of the issues were outside the purview of a municipal council that doesn’t have any control over electricity rates. A few of the notes I made during this time:

A resident in a very rural area wants to know where all the money comes from; answer: taxpayers, of course

Environmental Registry has document laying out technology, methodology, and review for people who want to engage in co-generation, microFIT, etc.

Hydro One is supposed to refer you to energy generation methods available if you want to engage in co-generation, microFIT, etc.

Overall, I’m confident Christian didn’t quite get what he was looking for at the meeting, which is unfortunate. I am, however, hopeful that he got enough information and feedback through the survey to assemble an effective Community Energy Plan.

]]>https://dereksilva.ca/2016/11/community-energy-plan-stakeholder-engagement-meeting/feed/0Designing with Empathy Using VRhttps://dereksilva.ca/2016/03/designing-with-empathy-using-vr/
https://dereksilva.ca/2016/03/designing-with-empathy-using-vr/#respondSat, 05 Mar 2016 18:56:55 +0000http://dereksilva.ca/?p=1003We are in a very exciting time, as usual, for technology. Virtual reality has risen from the ashes thanks to Oculus’ successful Kickstarter campaign a few years ago (and subsequent acquisition by Facebook), Google Cardboard, Samsung’s GearVR, and HTC & Valve’s Vive. Not to mention augmented reality platforms like Microsoft’s HoloLens, Meta, and LeapMotion.

The problem? Well, maybe not a problem, but certainly the short-term focus has been on gaming. Almost all of the applications to be released at launch, and shortly thereafter, are games or fun things to do. That’s fine, because it helps generate excitement and sales, which will hopefully lead to long-term platform sustainability. And while there are people talking about other applications, I feel like we need to start seeing some development on them.

One application I’d really like to see more focus on, and development for now, is building and public space design (architecture as a whole, if you will). I would argue that it hasn’t been good enough for decades now for someone to simply design a building, have engineers execute on the design, and then marvel in the result. The more people I meet, the more I realize how inadequate our buildings and public spaces are. If you were to try to get around your neighbourhood or the nearest downtown core in a wheelchair for one day, how would you fare? Not well, I’d bet.

I want to see a near future where designers are not only dreaming up crazy cool spaces, but also experience them the way others do before unleashing their vision on the rest of us. Where an architect will design the first few floors of a building, then plop themselves down in a mock wheelchair of sorts, strap on a VR headset, and wheel themselves around the building. From outside into the building, moving between floors, and determining how easy it is versus the ability to do so on two feet.

Perhaps more importantly, interior designers should be doing the same. I have worked in many workplaces that I feel would be completely unnavigable in a wheel chair, or even crutches! Why? Because an overwhelming majority of able-bodied people own the buildings, design the spaces, and then work in those spaces everyday. Unfortunately we don’t all have the fortune to have full use of all four limbs all day, and it’s high time that we all feel like our abilities are being considered when new building plans are being drafted, or interiors are being renovated, or our public spaces are being built and re-built.

Designing with empathy in mind is a good start. Living the experience yourself is the next step. Virtual reality can put you in the middle of a war zone with a plastic gun, and it can also show you how the world around you has been designed assuming you have four functional limbs, or that you have 20/20 vision, or that you see a full spectrum of colours that others cannot. Being more compassionate at how others will use the things you design and envision will make you better for it.

]]>https://dereksilva.ca/2016/03/designing-with-empathy-using-vr/feed/0Kilworth PPM Re: Revised Zoning for New Subdivisionhttps://dereksilva.ca/2015/06/kilworth-ppm-re-revised-zoning-for-new-subdivision/
https://dereksilva.ca/2015/06/kilworth-ppm-re-revised-zoning-for-new-subdivision/#respondTue, 02 Jun 2015 02:17:44 +0000http://dereksilva.ca/?p=992I attended last week’s public meeting regarding a revised re-zoning request being put forth for the Don Black lands. If you missed the first go around back in December 2013, just click here to see what happened then.

This most recent zoning application was a very, very different story from the first. On a side note, I was pleased to see some new faces amongst the crowd in attendance: some people I know but haven’t seen at a meeting before, some people that have recently moved to Kilworth, and others who have chosen to engage at this point.

For reference, here’s the public information packet. I’m hosting it myself since I don’t know how long the municipality will leave it up on their website. This was the information distributed to council and the public prior to the meeting – council only received it on May 22, just five days before the public meeting.

I was a few minutes late for the presentation from Tridon (who has replaced Stantec on the project). Here’s what I got from the presentation:

Asking for duplex, twinned, single detached, townhouses in the UR3 areas

Minimum 28m height is a typo, should read “maximum”

Claim that there will be three multi-use pathways – Daventry, Doan Drive, and the main north/south drag that will connect the South Winds Dev and Don Black dev, up to Glendon

Took inspiration from new 3-story walkup near Masonville for Block I

Talking about the school like it’s definitely going to be there; not a done deal, despite school board (which one?) expressing interest

Municipal staff asking to enhance Optimist Park; DBI/Tridon ready to place one or two soccer fields at Optimist Park; have retained park planner to help sort out the plan

Need to widen Glendon at two points, where new north/south street comes out and at Springfield Way

Questions I wrote down during the presentation (answers later):

Why is there such a massive difference between the proposal from December 2013 and this latest proposal?

It’s been almost 18 months since the original proposal came through. Why are we still at a phase where, really, there is no detail as to exactly what Don Black Investments and Tridon want to put on the land?

Who will pay for the streetlights on Glendon, and the eventual enhancement of Glendon/Vanneck/Coldstream/Jefferies (a.k.a. Five Corners)?

Questions and Answers:

Got clarification on what setback means, and they want to reduce it from 6m to 2.5m

Ken D. asked whether the traffic study had included cyclists or not; it didn’t

I followed up and asked why it hadn’t, and the answer was that the original study was very old and Tridon has never seen a traffic study that included cyclists

Al D is concerned about traffic, another 120 cars in the current development area; probably looking at ~1,000 cars mostly heading to London

Brian Lima, municipal engineer, municipality is looking at EA for Glendon Dr from bridge to 402, focus will be streetscape development; EA will produce baseline info to evaluate how to handle Glendon Dr

Mayor Edmondson says the want to get EA done before development starts

Al D asked when construction will start; Tridon went over the process, wastewater treatment pipeline still needs to be finished; hoping to have first housing done late 2016 or early 2017

Brian Lima says earliest EA will be complete is early 2017

Jane C, lives on Komoka Rd; does not support bylaw amendment application; OFA is calling for protection of multiple kinds of land, including this farm property; has a history with Tridon and protesting the way they do development in Komoka and her aunt’s land; much applause

Darren on behalf of Ratepayers Association; “I’m for development, but not this development. This development completely changes the face of Kilworth.” Lots of consistency now from river up to Stephen Moore and Baron Cres; and then there’s this proposal; pointing out how other developments by the same company are 40′ wide, 36′ wide, and 34′ wide; this is not for Kilworth

Ian T; how many more people is this going to bring? Average of 2.1 per household, but no one at Tridon wanted to do the math for us and give us a total number, potentially because the number of households to be built is still up in the air(?)

Zelinka Priamo representative (didn’t catch her name) has a problem with additional C1 (commercial) proposed as a big C1 hub is supposed to go on NE corner of Tunks and Glendon

New planning justification not submitted because DBI feels this is the same development with minor tweaks; this woman has been working on planning applications for 30 years and has never seen an application with such a huge lack of information

Victor N just moved here from Tecumseh, daughter suggested it as a beautiful area; retired from Canada Post management; seniors centre will likely be 3 or 4 floors, and many of those seniors won’t be able to get their mail; this plan will turn Kilworth into an area that’s no longer nice; no shopping, no buses; doesn’t make sense

How many cars is anticipated to exit onto Glendon Dr? 995 during AM peak time.

Parking and visitor parking would be put in place as per the bylaw(s) that require them

Answers to my questions:

The design is drastically different because the municipality asked us to go from two entrances to Glendon, down to one

Don’t have any idea what we want to market on C1 and some UR3 properties because we don’t have the zoning yet

Chances are that the conditions laid out by the County will say that the developer must pay for the new streetlights and enhancements to “Five Corners”

Later on I got a chance to read a statement I had prepared. It ended up being the final word of the night, though I didn’t intend it to be so. I was asked to cede the floor to others earlier in the night after asking my questions I had written down. The statement went, more or less, as follows:

I have some serious misgivings about the revised proposal being presented here today. Here are a few:

This looks *nothing* like the original proposal presented December 4, 2013.

I will say, on a positive note, that Daventry Way has been opened up. I appreciate that being taken into consideration after the last public participation meeting.

On the other hand, the original proposal maintained a lot of flow with the existing settlement, and proposed wide path ways that would encourage active transport around the neighbourhood. In the documents we see today, those have been completely done away with.

It appears that a 6 storey building is proposed for Block G. I fully understand the need for mixed housing, however a 6 storey building simply doesn’t make any sense outside of a larger community like Strathroy. People living in apartment buildings typically expect highly walkable areas, which, much as I enjoy living in this area, Kilworth and Komoka do not qualify as highly walkable areas, with Kilworth currently receiving a Walk Score of 9.

The proposal doesn’t appear to contain anything that would significantly alter the Walk Score.

Information about proposed heights for several blocks are missing from the proposal.

The street design, frankly, is pathetic and will make the proposed settlement a nightmare to navigate. It doesn’t use the current set of best practices being used in the most walkable neighbourhoods worldwide.

Overall, this proposal simply contains far too much density for the area. I was mostly in favour of the original, but this has taken a drastic turn for the worse. I was happy to defend the original proposal, despite its minor flaws, but I cannot, in good conscience, ask Councillor DeViet to vote in favour of this proposal as it stands before us today.

That got a round of applause, as did many other statements made and questions asked by members of the public throughout the night. Mayor Edmondson had a hard time maintaining order at several points as people got fed up with the answers – and in some cases non-answers provided by Tridon. Needless to say it didn’t go well for Tridon and Don Black, and we hope the next version of the zoning application is very different. Whether the planner, Ben Puzanov, mandates another public meeting for the next iteration remains to be seen.

]]>https://dereksilva.ca/2015/06/kilworth-ppm-re-revised-zoning-for-new-subdivision/feed/0On Safetyhttps://dereksilva.ca/2014/10/on-safety/
https://dereksilva.ca/2014/10/on-safety/#respondSun, 19 Oct 2014 17:41:35 +0000http://dereksilva.ca/?p=871As we reach the beginning of the voting period, I wanted to talk about safety in Middlesex Centre, and specifically Ward 4.

Over the next 10 years there is going to be a great deal of road reconstruction happening. We have an infrastructure funding gap of roughly $42,000,000 worth of infrastructure repairs that need to be addressed as soon as possible, and roughly another $43,000,000 worth of infrastructure repairs that need to be addressed over the next 10 years.

In that infrastructure there will no doubt be roads that need to be repaired and rebuilt. I asked municipal staff recently whether any of those roads were slated to include bike lanes, and I got this response:

“At the present time, no specific bike lanes / routes have been slated for inclusion with any one particular reconstruction project.”

As a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver, I find this extremely disappointing. The staff member goes on to remind me that bikes can share the road with vehicles, and while that’s true it’s not really a solution. All over the world we’re seeing municipalities of every size embracing dedicated bike lanes as part of a solution towards making roads safer, for both cyclists and drivers, and yet we have none slated here in Middlesex Centre.

Additionally, there are a host of issues we need to explore and determine how to resolve. These are the types of issues and potential solutions people are discussing with me:

Replacing intersections like Glendon and Vanneck/Jefferies with roundabouts

Paving the shoulders of Glendon Drive and installing bike lanes – this would make the road safer for all users

Replacing some STOP signs with YIELD signs – this has been shown to be effective in some situations

Incorporating/mandating the “complete streets” philosophy in new developments and reconstructions

The school crossing at Fieldrun Drive and Oxbow Drive could also include installing rumble strips, increasing police presence for an extended period of time, eliminating the back-and-forth with the TVDSB and funding a crossing guard, and so on.

We have to put a stop to the rising number of collisions on our roads, and some of this will include coordination with the County and even the City of London. Ultimately we continue to see mitigation methods put in place that are not working, with little follow-up, or a lack of communication about what else can be done.

You love living in this area. I do too. And that’s why safety is so important to me, to you, our children, and even adults who are trying to stay active. We can do better!

Together we can build communities that are connected, respected, and protected. Vote for Derek Silva for Councillor of Ward 4!

]]>https://dereksilva.ca/2014/10/on-safety/feed/0On Communicationhttps://dereksilva.ca/2014/09/on-communication/
https://dereksilva.ca/2014/09/on-communication/#respondTue, 30 Sep 2014 17:30:31 +0000http://dereksilva.ca/?p=869Almost every time I speak to someone about my campaign for Councillor of Ward 4, especially when canvassing, I talk about communication. Middlesex Centre does occasionally sending out the CentreLine, a small feel-good pamphlet about things happening around the municipality. It’s mostly fluff though – the last one talked about the new splash pad, public skating rates at the arena, etc.

Where’s the newsletter or pamphlet about the serious stuff? Where are the public announcements (other than the website) about public participation meetings? Where is the easy-to-access mechanism for feedback on things like new subdivisions, or to see how your Councillor voted on an issue?

The reality is that it isn’t there. These things simply do not exist now in Middlesex Centre, and it is time that changed.

As Councillor of Ward 4, I pledge to:

Hold quarterly town halls where citizens can ask questions, and I will answer them as best I can

Send out a regular newsletter that details recent Council decisions, important decisions coming up, how I plan to vote and why, along with background info

I have already begun collecting email addresses for this newsletter while canvassing, and you can add yourself to it at the top of the page! I will only use this list in the event I’m elected Councillor.

Send out notifications about upcoming public participation meetings

Send recaps of public participation meetings and other major meetings

Write regular blog entries about upcoming municipal business, where I stand and why — residents will be able to comment here and provide feedback

Introduce a measure to implement an online platform to easily view issues up for debate, background info, and even citizen voting on those issues — the current method of viewing PDFs is not efficient, or sufficient (e.g. DemocracyOS and Loomio)

Introduce a measure for Middlesex Centre to look at duplicating the State of Iowa’s snow plow tracker system across the county – this would be a partnership with the county, other nearby municipalities, and the City of London

This is about safety, yes, but also about being transparent with regards to how well snow removal is happening and where the plows are; I think it would set a great example to lead on something we all know is coming every year in this great nation of ours.

Introduce a measure to explore live streaming committee and council meetings, as well as archiving them online

This would benefit residents and the press as well, providing a reference for any statements made by Councillors or confusing back-and-forths

I would like to keep the initial capital expense for this initiative under $1,000 and use an existing service that would make this far less expensive than how other municipalities handle live streaming

And really, these are just some of the things we can do. I have already made myself available via Twitter, Facebook, email, phone, and even at home. I will continue to re-visit the most popular methods and make sure that the mediums residents use, I use also. I want to be your representative. I want to find out what’s important to you. Only together can we build communities that are connected, respected, and protected.

]]>https://dereksilva.ca/2014/09/on-communication/feed/0What’s your position on Arva Fire Hall?https://dereksilva.ca/2014/09/whats-your-position-on-arva-fire-hall/
https://dereksilva.ca/2014/09/whats-your-position-on-arva-fire-hall/#respondThu, 25 Sep 2014 01:49:44 +0000http://dereksilva.ca/?p=867This is a question I’ve been hearing a lot lately, especially since closing Arva Fire Hall was just put to a vote last week. My understanding is that a decision was deferred for a year, which I was thankful to hear, but it also means I’ll be voting on it if I’m elected Councillor. So to make my position very clear, I’m posting it publicly.

I took the time to read the staff report and recommendations. While I tend to appreciate the effort that staff and consultants put into such reports, I must say that I cannot bring myself to agree that Arva’s fire hall should be eliminated for a number of reasons:

There will, no doubt, be additional growth in Arva in the future. Arva’s fire hall is also the second busiest in Middlesex Centre!

Eliminating the fire hall in Arva puts its residents more than 11km away from a Middlesex Centre fire hall, resulting in an instant increase to property insurance rates (property insurers use 8km as their benchmark) unless the municipality has an agreement in place that London’s nearest fire halls will service Arva.

As outlined in the report, existing volunteers may choose to not support the Ilderton or Bryanston stations, resulting in a decrease in the number of firefighters available for an increased workload.

If the Arva Flour Mill ever catches on fire… well, I think we all know how flour reacts to fire, and the resulting damage could be devastating to multiple properties in the area depending on the severity of the incident.

So, that’s a long way of saying that I’m against closing any existing fire halls. We have a large municipality and need all the coverage we can get, and we need to ensure our volunteers have the equipment they need to respond to emergencies. I want to work together with citizens to build communities that are connected, respected, and protected.

]]>https://dereksilva.ca/2014/09/whats-your-position-on-arva-fire-hall/feed/0“Do you have any signs?”https://dereksilva.ca/2014/09/do-you-have-any-signs/
https://dereksilva.ca/2014/09/do-you-have-any-signs/#respondThu, 04 Sep 2014 21:30:48 +0000http://dereksilva.ca/?p=865The more people I talk to, the more frequently I hear the question, “Do you have any signs?”

I’m flattered that people are asking, but for several reasons the answer is, “Sorry, I don’t.” Here’s why.

My platform includes talk of fiscal responsibility. It is something I truly believe in, especially when you are spending other people’s money. We have all seen too often, whether here in Middlesex Centre or around the province, just how easy it is to be flippant with funds provided by others.

When I talk of fiscal responsibility, I am talking about how I treat my own money, and how I would treat the municipal budget. It isn’t something to simply read over and pass. It’s something that can always be under going minor tweaks in order to get the best value for the dollars being spent. The Kaizen approach, if you will. And looking for better and less expensive ways to do the same thing is not something that should simply be reserved for budget time.

I don’t look at my personal finances once a year. I am always evaluating whether I’m spending the right, or least, amount of money for the services I consume. If I can make something more inexpensive but attain the same result (e.g. property insurance, Internet service, phone service, purchasing groceries), I do. The same should be able to be said about any government. And as I outline in my platform – it’s not about cutting jobs, but finding better and more efficient ways to do things.

So instead of choosing to spend hard-earned campaign contributions on a bunch signs that would not be used for another four years – to the tune of at least $5 per sign – I have chosen to knock on every single door in the ward. You will see me at events, you might see me at your door, at the arena, or even walking/running around Kilworth. Feel free to engage with me at any of these times, because I feel we can get a lot more done speaking to each other.

]]>https://dereksilva.ca/2014/09/do-you-have-any-signs/feed/0Planning Notice Signshttps://dereksilva.ca/2014/08/planning-notice-signs/
https://dereksilva.ca/2014/08/planning-notice-signs/#respondWed, 27 Aug 2014 01:01:54 +0000http://dereksilva.ca/?p=863I would like to discuss an issue that falls under the Communication portion of my platform, that being planning notice signs.

We see these fairly often around Middlesex Centre. There is one in Ilderton right now in a field at the corner of Hyde Park Rd and Ilderton Rd. They vary in size depending on the size of the land affected, serve to notify us that the existing zoning for a parcel of land may soon change, and that you can contact the municipality if you would like more information. But for such an important piece of communication between the municipality and its citizens, the signs don’t really provide you with any pertinent information.

It’s one thing for a parcel of land along, let’s say, Glendon Drive to change from low density residential to medium density residential. Or even from medium density commercial to low density commercial. A minor change typically is not of any interest to most citizens, and that’s not really a problem. What is a problem is that the same sign is used for potentially drastic changes, like rezoning from low density residential to industrial. Did you know someone wants to put a factory next to your house?

There would be much more communication about such a change, including neighbouring properties being notified about a public participation meeting and so on. But the point stands: the same planning notice sign gives you no context about why you might want to call. It should, shouldn’t it?

If elected Councillor of Ward 4, I would propose a drastic redesign of Middlesex Centre’s planning notice signs. I would like to see us go from this:

Ottawa’s is a good example of what a planning notice sign can be. A depiction of what’s proposed, better contact information (like who to speak to), and even a brief summary of the proposal. This is far more effective than what Middlesex Centre, or any nearby municipality, uses today. There are many more examples here (page 2).

At the end of the day, it’s a small change that can have a huge impact on communication between Middlesex Centre and its residents. You deserve to know what’s going on, right upfront without having to jump through hoops. And when you have better information, you can then decide for yourself if you want to take your engagement to the next level. And that’s one example of what I mean when I talk about building communities together.

]]>https://dereksilva.ca/2014/08/planning-notice-signs/feed/0Comments on Development Charges Studyhttps://dereksilva.ca/2014/07/comments-on-development-charges-study/
https://dereksilva.ca/2014/07/comments-on-development-charges-study/#respondMon, 21 Jul 2014 23:18:35 +0000http://dereksilva.ca/?p=861Last Wednesday there was a public participation meeting at 4pm in Middlesex Centre Council chambers. Unfortunately only two members of the public (including myself) and one member of the press were able to make the meeting, but a consultant named Andrew from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. was on-hand to give a presentation of the background study, its conclusions, and a proposed development charge bylaw to replace the existing bylaw.

The most important takeaway from the proposed bylaw is that Middlesex Centre will move from varied development charges in Ilderton, Ilderton West, Komoka, Kilworth and Delaware to a single, uniform development charge. This will make things simpler for developers, easier for the municipality to apply, and also far easier for the municipality to project revenues. It’s win-win.

Answers to questions I asked at the meeting are as follows:

School boards are exempted from paying development charges under the Development Charges Act. This was a huge blow to further development in Delaware since the London District Catholic School Board didn’t have to pay development charges for the new Our Lady of Lourdes.

Upon further review of the data and proposed bylaw in the study, I came to some additional concerns that needed to be submitted. I wrote the email below and sent it to the Clerk for inclusion in Wednesday’s agenda as a comment on the background study.

Hello,

I am submitting these comments for inclusion in Council’s agenda for the upcoming Council meeting on July 23, 2014 regarding changes to the proposed development charges by-law.

I have read the report and proposed by-law assembled by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd, and I have some concerns that are not addressed in the report or analysis.

There are no provisions here for recovering costs associated with expanding police services to new developments. The provincial development charges law provides provisions for recovering 100% of the costs associated with police detachments, police rolling stock, and small equipment & gear. At the public meeting on July 16, 2014 I was told by Andrew, from Watson & Associates, that the proposed by-law would institute development charges to recoup 100% of the eligible fees. At the moment, this does not appear to be true. At a time when police services costs are skyrocketing, I feel it’s extremely important to set aside funds, collected through development charges, to help Middlesex Centre cope with rising police services costs.

The development charge for libraries that is proposed to be levied against apartments appears to be artificially low. Apartment dwellers are just as likely, if not more likely depending on their demographic, to utilize libraries.

In 2013 I was told by my Councillor that Public Works had to defer purchasing a new vehicle due to financial constraints. And yet the proposed development charges for Public Works has been reduced compared with existing fees. Why is that? I cannot find justification in the document.

The table on page 113 clearly illustrates that the Water Reserve Fund will begin experiencing substantially negative cash flow, and will be in deficit by the year 2022. This deficit continues until 2034. Given the lack of major projects that the Water Reserve Fund will finance, in direct contrast with the Waste Water Reserve Fund, I encourage Council to consider increasing the Water development charge slightly in order to reduce the municipality’s debt, if not avoid it entirely with respect to the Water Reserve Fund.

Lastly, I’m disappointed that the graphs shown on Wednesday at the public meeting – graphs illustrating how high/low Middlesex Centre’s current and proposed development charges are and will be in relation to nearby municipalities – are not included in the background study. I thought these were good fodder, but now I can’t reference them.

In light of the issues and questions above, I am urging Council to defer this back to staff for further review. I believe we’re very close to having an effective development charges by-law for 2014, but we are not quite “there” yet.

Thank you,

Derek E. Silva

A member of the public and a member of Council both expressed an interest in knowing what would happen if we reduced the industrial development charge to $0, hoping it would entice more industry to Middlesex Centre. This is something that several municipalities near us have already done including London, Woodstock, and St. Thomas. Given the lack of “big wins” over the last few years, I don’t see this strategy working. For starters it means the slack would have to be picked up elsewhere, and that elsewhere would almost certainly be property taxes. In addition to that, every economist I follow, and every discussion about where to set up a new business I’ve been privy to, has rarely (if ever) mentioned development charges as part of the conversation.

What is discussed instead is the labour force available, the land available, access to infrastructure, and so on. Access to infrastructure, especially Internet infrastructure, is something we could focus and have a direct effect on. Waiving development charges on new industrial buildings just means citizens are subsidizing the development charges instead. I cannot vote in favour of that, but that is the road some will try to take us down.

If you would like to learn more about the Development Charges Act, or the proposed bylaw for Middlesex Centre, I am happy to answer any questions!

]]>https://dereksilva.ca/2014/07/comments-on-development-charges-study/feed/0Healthy Hikes Challengehttps://dereksilva.ca/2014/06/healthy-hikes-challenge/
https://dereksilva.ca/2014/06/healthy-hikes-challenge/#respondSat, 14 Jun 2014 00:30:03 +0000http://dereksilva.ca/?p=856Reading through recent Middlesex Centre council meeting minutes — what? Isn’t that what you do in your spare time? — I came across a notice about the Healthy Hikes Challenge.

From their website:

Conservation Ontario and Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities challenge you to spend time hiking in our province’s over 270 Conservation Areas and track your progress for a chance to win great prizes! Healthy Hikes will teach you about the ways our environment boosts your health and how you can energize your body and mind by Stepping into Nature.

At first I got excited about the prospects of taking more time to visit Komoka Provincial Park and maybe win a prize by doing something that’s good for me. Unfortunately, a second later I realized I was thinking of a Provincial Park, and not a Conservation Area. So for me that means I would need to drive to the Coldstream Conservation Area, or walk/bike to Komoka Provincial Park to accomplish (minus the prizes) the same thing.

I think I’ll stick with Komoka Provincial Park, but I would still encourage you to participate in the Healthy Hikes Challenge! If you already frequent a Conservation Area near you, it’s easy to register and log your activity. There are some pretty great prizes on the line too!